To ask the Minister of Justice for an update on her Department’s Enabling Access to Justice reform programme.

Mrs Long

Work has progressed at pace since I announced the programme on 2 December, and I have now published the programme delivery plan for consultation. The consultation will be critical in ensuring that we examine issues in the right order and properly take account of interconnectivities. I have been clear, however, that we do not have the luxury of time if we are to deliver the system that our citizens deserve, and I intend to make progress wherever possible while the consultation is ongoing. That includes steps to give effect to an uplift in fees for publicly funded advice and representation, the consultation on which also launched last week. I have prioritised that work to ensure the continued viability and stability of the system, but other actions will follow and follow quickly. I am conscious that each set of proposals in the plan will require detailed engagement and supporting legislative and administrative frameworks, so we cannot delay the realisation of the benefits if we are to seize the opportunity that the reform programme presents to ensure a fairer, more accessible, proportionate, responsive and cost-effective system that places the citizen at its heart.

Mrs Long

I thank the Member for the opportunity to provide clarification. The answer is no it has not. When I launched the programme in December, I noted my intention to progress a fees uplift as soon as possible and to consult on the proposed uplift in January, with a view to implementing the changes in May. There is a significant amount of work involved, and the timetable is ambitious, but I have committed resources to ensure that it can be achieved, with the publication of the fees consultation last week remaining on track to deliver on that schedule.

Ms Bunting

Given the Bar's decision to extend its strike, what engagement has the Minister had with the profession recently on the Burgess review? Whilst I am aware of the consultation, what more might be done to move all this towards a resolution in weeks rather than by the end of the consultation, which will be in months? What does she consider to be the social value of legal aid?

Mrs Long

I will answer those questions in reverse. The social value of legal aid is that is provides access to justice for those who could not otherwise afford to access justice. I see it as being part of the welfare system and the security net that is provided for our citizens. Therefore, it is important that we are able to ensure that it is directed to the most needy and vulnerable at the right point in time. The Department and I have had ongoing engagement with the criminal Bar over recent weeks and months. I will meet representatives of the Law Society and, indeed, criminal solicitors tomorrow. I will also meet representatives of the criminal Bar tomorrow afternoon. My objective is to bring the action to a close because I believe that we have moved some considerable way. The original demands were for the Burgess review report to be published, and it has been published. I was then asked to provide whatever uplift Burgess asked for, and I have said that 16% will be provided. I cannot do that immediately, which is the latest request. It is impossible to provide it immediately, but I can provide it. Another ask was to implement the recommendations of the Burgess review, and, if you look at the wider enabling access to justice landscape, you will see that that has been met. Indeed, one of the reasons why I delayed going out to consultation from December until this month was to take account of concerns that the criminal Bar had raised about some of the measures that we were proposing in the programme. I have adjusted the programme to take account of that to try to get a resolution. However, when you seek to meet someone halfway, it is important that that person does not regress from their position if you are going to have any success. Hopefully, tomorrow, we will be in a position to close the gap rather than simply move the gap to a different place.

Ms D Armstrong

Minister, how are you and your Department tackling continued fraud and error in the legal aid budget?

Mrs Long

There has been a significant reduction in fraud and error in the legal aid budget in recent years, and our accounts have made great progress over that time by bearing down on the elements of the legal aid system where there are errors. In the majority of cases, by the way, it is error rather than fraud. It is also important, as part of the enabling access to justice programme that I have just spoken about, that we take all the opaque aspects of the legal aid system and shine the light of transparency and accountability into them in a way that has not been able to happen previously. That is part of the reform that I want to make so that we can account for public money in a way that the public can see; we have full insight into the mechanisms that are being used to grant legal aid, whether by the courts or the Legal Services Agency; and that we have confidence that money is reaching the people who are in greatest need at the point of their greatest need.

Mr McNulty

Will the Minister confirm whether and how she has ensured that justice users, practitioners, NGOs and other experts have been and are structurally involved in inputting into the review from day 1? Will the Minister explain her reference to bringing "all publicly funded legal services" within the purview of the Department? Does that mean, for example, the PPS?

Mrs Long

No, that refers not to the PPS but to other ways in which we can deliver front-line justice. Many organisations, particularly third-sector organisations, offer competent legal advice in a structure that is different from that which we normally focus on with individual legal practices. We want to make sure that their voices are also heard in the conversation. We have talked about the Burgess review report. That was only one element of a number of reviews of civil and criminal legal aid. Throughout the process, the professions, other providers and, crucially, the public have been involved. At the end of the day, I am not the employer of the professions. I am there to provide legal aid to the citizen so that they can employ someone to represent them in court. It has to be about what is best for the citizen. I respect the need for us to have a thriving legal profession. It is about striking the balance in the right place, however, and not letting anyone who may have a pecuniary interest in legal aid to dictate the terms for how we provide it.

Miss Hargey

I welcome the fact that you are meeting the associations tomorrow, Minister, on legal aid. You said that a 16% uplift will be provided. Will you give the detail on when?

Mrs Long

The intention is that the secondary legislation that underpins that will complete its passage by May. As you know, I have foreshortened the consultation on it to eight weeks because it is a targeted consultation, given that it affects a narrower group of people. We will have further conversations tomorrow about the commencement date for the 16% uplift. It is important to recognise, however, that I did not pluck the figure of 16% from the air. That is a recommendation that was based on evidence in the Burgess review report. Those who are now telling me that it is a paltry sum, that it should be discounted and that I should go with some other, more inflated figure therefore need to come to the point of realisation that, without an evidential basis, that is not on the table. We have to look at what Tom Burgess recommended, and we have to get it delivered. I have said that we will do that as quickly as possible. We then have to get people back to work, because, at the core of all this, victims are being retraumatised by delay in the criminal justice system. People are using the Crown Court — we are talking about rape victims and the families of murder victims — and waiting for trials to take place. It is incredibly retraumatising for them to be told that their case is not only adjourned but indefinitely adjourned because there is no end in sight. I want to bring this to a conclusion. I do not believe that strike action was necessary, given that I was about to publish my intentions. We have moved some considerable distance since I did so. I do not believe that the extension is necessary either, but I will sit down tomorrow, and we will work through this, because it is in all our interests, including those of the criminal Bar, that we bring it to a conclusion.